Sanctuary and Area of Effect

[Inhumer]

So this came up tonight.

Someone protected by the Sanctuary spell is in the area of effect of an attack.

Sanctuary says that it DETERS attacks, which implies it prevents the protected person being attacked rather than protects them from attacks directly/makes them immune.

Interpretation: everyone in an AoE is attacked/targeted. Sanctuary does not protect the subject but does deter (read: prevent if the save is failed) attacks.

Moreover a failed save says that the action is wasted.

So if someone with Sanctuary protection is within the area of an AoE attack does that then (on a failed save) prevent the attack from working at all i.e. for any target in the AoE?

The Attack Trait is not relevant here, I believe, as that is only used to determine whether the Multiple Attack Penalty applies.

So the options seem to be:

1. AoE attacks ignore Sanctuary.
2. AoE attacks ignore someone protected by Sanctuary within the AoE.
3. AoE attacks against someone targeted by an AoE...
3a. are not used (the 'charge' is preserved) but the action used to try and use the AoE is gone
3b. are used but can not include the person protected by Sanctuary in the AoE (you can reposition the AoE)
3c. are used but have no effect if someone protected by Sanctuary is in the AoE
3d. Something else.

[Finoan]

This may be one of the few times where having 'attack' defined as 'actions with the Attack trait' is actually beneficial.

AoE spells generally don't have the Attack trait. So they wouldn't be attacks and don't get prevented by Sanctuary.

At least... by RAW.

I'm not entirely sure that I like that ruling, but it is what comes to mind when reading the rules text.

[Castilliano]

I've thought of it in terms of the attacker ignoring the Sanctuary caster (SC) as a target. In that case, their AoE might hit the SC, but not intentionally, rather because other creatures were being targeted. So the attacker wouldn't for example move the AoE to include the SC, but neither would it stop them if the SC happened to be in the middle of juicy targets. I wouldn't let it be used as a workaround, but then again I'm the GM running the NPCs. Not sure I could count on players (say in PFS) having the same objectivity when tossing AoEs back. Hmm...

I could see in some cases the attacker moving the AoE so it doesn't hit the SC, depending on interpretation and in-game context.

And yeah, I'd think in terms of attacks in the broader sense, not in terms of the Attack trait.

[SuperBidi]

Inhumer wrote:

The Attack Trait is not relevant here, I believe, as that is only used to determine whether the Multiple Attack Penalty applies.

The Attack trait is very much relevant: No Attack trait, no attack. Sanctuary doesn't work against Fireballs and the like as they are no attacks.

Inhumer wrote:

1. AoE attacks ignore Sanctuary.

2. AoE attacks ignore someone protected by Sanctuary within the AoE.
3. AoE attacks against someone targeted by an AoE...
3a. are not used (the 'charge' is preserved) but the action used to try and use the AoE is gone
3b. are used but can not include the person protected by Sanctuary in the AoE (you can reposition the AoE)
3c. are used but have no effect if someone protected by Sanctuary is in the AoE
3d. Something else.

AoE attacks are extremely rare. I know of Swipe and it's all.

So I don't think you'll ever face the case. And if you ever face it then a failed save would prevent the entire Swipe.

Be careful, many AoE effects are giving an attack against each target, like Whirlwind Attack, and as such in that case it's easy to handle.

[The Raven Black]

I am afraid SuperBidi is right. If they wanted to include things beyond actions with the Attack trait, they could have easily mentioned "hostile actions" instead.

It further reduces the value of Sanctuary, which is already low based on how the definition of hostile actions can vary tremendously between GMs.

Come to think of it, I wish they had written hostile actions rather than attacks.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

The Raven Black wrote:

I am afraid SuperBidi is right. If they wanted to include things beyond actions with the Attack trait, they could have easily mentioned "hostile actions" instead.

It further reduces the value of Sanctuary, which is already low based on how the definition of hostile actions can vary tremendously between GMs.

Come to think of it, I wish they had written hostile actions rather than attacks.

It would be pretty powerful if it worked on all hostile actions, and would go against the idea that a 3rd level spell is easily stopped by a 1st level spell. It might have been fine if the spell worked as a counteract against area effects, similar to Dispelling Globe, but a blanket action waster is too powerful.

This was also an issue with Mirror Image, where it specifies the word 'attack', but doesn't include targeted effects, especially ones that were save-based.